Was out to dinner with some of the family back in the homeland (Brooklyn) and
was delayed enough that upon return, preparing an update (along with watching
the end of the rather startling Yankees/Sox game) went past midnight, so like
the previous time this happened, last night's news becomes this morning's. I'm
time traveling like it's the original Star Trek now!

Speaking of which, I'm finding the Shatner CD as hard to find in stores as the
Ren & Stimpy DVD collection... what's happened to good taste in this country?

The reason the US didn't ratify was because a lot of EU politicians saw it as a cheap way of damaging the US economy. While there are benefits in moving pollution (because it imposes upper limits), it shouldn't have been done with the intent on pissing off the US. Not surprisingly, you decided this wasn't something you were interested in. The EU politicians behaving like complete twats came as no surprise either.

Nobody reads 2 day old posts... but bah! Many good points previously mentioned. I only wish to comment on

Also, yes, I am aware that the US pollutes 24% as to China's 22%. However, China is an up and coming industrial state. Ten years from now, China WILL be the world's biggest poluter.Also, explain to me how it is deemed fair that China was exempt from the Protocol, but the US would've had to adhere to it?

I mentioned a possibility why China was exempt. Play the numbers game. Change the 24% and 22% numbers to per capita. China produces 2.5 tonnes of CO2 per capita and US produces 20 tonnes per capita and the entire EU produces 8.5 tonnes per capita (all approximate). China is not a big polluter per capita. Also mentioned China had reduced pollutants over the past years but I do agree it will definitely increase over the years because of their ravenous growing economy. But, I seriously doubt it will overtake the US as biggest polluter per capita unless they all start driving SUVs back and forth from the suburbs.

But we all know the real reason China is exempt because they are considered a developing country which I would agree is just retarded.

The problem is - IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY REDUCE POLLUTION in the above situation. It just shifts it from one country to another. What, Romania doesn't use all of it's pollution quota and we're over ours? Let's just pollute there and pay them for the electricity! Exactly what pollution was prevented in this instance? All you did was effectively take jobs and pollution away from a thriving country/area and move them to a less developed/underutilized area.

This is supposed to prevent pollution, not be another governmental welfare program.

Thank you.This is not what was SUPPOSED to happen. The Kyoto Protocol was portrayed as being the world's efforts in REDUCING polution. It's not reducing polution at all, it's just redistributing it. But since the average voter doesn't realise this, the majority of people think the governments are great, because they're doing something about it.

When they aren't. They're just hiding the problem.

Also, yes, I am aware that the US pollutes 24% as to China's 22%. However, China is an up and coming industrial state. Ten years from now, China WILL be the world's biggest poluter. Also, explain to me how it is deemed fair that China was exempt from the Protocol, but the US would've had to adhere to it?Either we ALL adhere to it, or I see no problem with saying "I'm not signing this". Which is what the US did.

Hey, that the US can do MORE, ofcourse, although again I mention the fact that the US IS cleaning up its shit. But then again, EVERY country could do more, and SHOULD do more. Shifting pollution around doesn't do any good whatsoever.Pollution is a global problem, but they're tackling it at a local level, and thus pretend they're actually doing something useful. When they aren't.

Do so more research into it, and you'll see just what a smokescreen it really is.

Creston

Edit : The treaty does not directly attempt to reduce pollution, but indirectly does so by applying the most motivating lever available out there - money.

Except it doesn't work, because you can just shift your pollution around and avoid paying the fines. You still pollute just as much, and don't have to pay anything for it. As 'solutions' go, this ain't a real good one.

edit 2 : You say "Europe wouldn't do something like that either." That's funny because all of the EU ratified. Was it easier for them?

Missed that one. In many ways, yes, it was easier for them, because large portions of the infrastructure were already in place for them to switch to the loopholes for shifting your pollution to. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia etc. Almost every country in Europe is connected to each other on the grid, and it's actually pretty simple to move power from one country to another.Where is the US going to shift its pollution to? To Canada? Can't go there, because they have their own strict pollution guidelines. To Mexico? Won't work because Mexico already pollutes a lot themselves, and there is no infrastructure to shift that much of your power generation to a different country. And that's about it. Where else is the US going to go? If the US had six neighbors from which it could get power and so "obey" the protocol, they would have signed happily. As Europe did.

You forget that countries polluting over thier quota and having to pay fines or hefty fees will be inclined to do something about their pollution problem and attempt to remedy it by bringing it down to or below thier quota.

The treaty does not directly attempt to reduce pollution, but indirectly does so by applying the most motivating lever available out there - money.

I didn't forget it, I just said that in the example given no pollution is curbed. But you are right - it would end up costing big $$$ for those going over the quota. I'm sure that the costs would just be passed on down, whether it's from complient technology or fees for being over your quota. Either way, we all pay more, especially the countries actually producing a lot of energy-dependant goods.

************** Warhawk **************

You're gonna regret this the rest of your life... both seconds of it.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

You forget that countries polluting over thier quota and having to pay fines or hefty fees will be inclined to do something about their pollution problem and attempt to remedy it by bringing it down to or below thier quota.

The treaty does not directly attempt to reduce pollution, but indirectly does so by applying the most motivating lever available out there - money.

At it's most basic concept, the Kyoto treaty is no different that the Bush administration's proposals for reducing air pollution right here in the U.S.

Er, that's what is supposed to happen. It's a simple economic soltution to a problem such as pollution - permit trading. They do it at an industry level too, so it's nothing new and, in fact, is actually an efficient way of doing things. Plus it offsets the cost.

The problem is - IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY REDUCE POLLUTION in the above situation. It just shifts it from one country to another. What, Romania doesn't use all of it's pollution quota and we're over ours? Let's just pollute there and pay them for the electricity! Exactly what pollution was prevented in this instance? All you did was effectively take jobs and pollution away from a thriving country/area and move them to a less developed/underutilized area.

This is supposed to prevent pollution, not be another governmental welfare program.

Your logic is skewed, Sandy. Are you say these 1,000+ fine young people have died in Iraq for no reason? Have you forgotten the 3,000+ people the terrorists killed in the attacks on the United States? Did you not read or have you not heard that the 9-11 report did indeed tie Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda together.

Romania was under it's "allowance" for polution, and could thus generate MORE polution without facing consequences.

Er, that's what is supposed to happen. It's a simple economic soltution to a problem such as pollution - permit trading. They do it at an industry level too, so it's nothing new and, in fact, is actually an efficient way of doing things. Plus it offsets the cost.

While I'm no Kyoto expert, the fact remains that something must be done, and the US isn't doing enough. Neither are a lot of places, but often it takes some big ones to ratify before others fall in line.

Oh, I'm sorry if there was a crazy argument about Kyoto before. I must have missed it during my lurking.

(I don't want to quote the whole rant, but my response to some points)

1) Did you read my other post? China contributes approximately 22% of pollution as you say. Well, the US contributes approximately 24%. And China has more than 3 times the people. I can play the numbers game too (as I did earlier). Try comparing pollution per capita. See previous post when I also said China is cleaning up too.

2) I never mentioned Bush and I'm well aware of the Senate vote.

You say "Europe wouldn't do something like that either." That's funny because all of the EU ratified. Was it easier for them?

THAT, in a nutshell, is the Kyoto Protocol, and how countries are 'adhering' to it. So please, get off your fucking moral high horse, and stop flaunting it as your proof how the US is so EEEVVIILLLL, because it's all just fucking bullshit.

Sorry, but I am going to get on my fucking moral high horse and say "You're with us or against us."

Hey, I decided I want to learn me some 3D modeling and animation stuff (ya know, more than bouncing boxes and squares).Anybody know a good website with beginner tutorials, or perhaps a book and or video series? Ect?!

[edit: screwed up 3dtotal link]---------------------------------------------[No pixels were harmed in the making of this post.]Vote Toothpick Spreader Party in 2004!This comment was edited on Oct 21, 02:12.

There's no way the Yankees make it through this season/into the playoffs without using their bullpen the way he used it.

Really, why is that? Discounting late August and September, when the Red Sox were coming on hard, and thus Torre had to scrap together wins by using his top guys, at what point in the season did it EVER look as if the Yankees were going to miss the post season? Was it when they were 12 games up over Boston, or when they were just 10.5 games up ?

Considering that, in the end, they won by 3 games, and had an EIGHT game lead in the Wild Card (which Boston won by five), that means that there were quite a few games were Torre easily could have gambled, and stuck with a mere mortal to get the last three outs.

Really, what's the point of bringing in Rivera when you're 5-2 up against Tampa Bay? So you get the win, well woohoo. Here's the thing. 99% of all major league pitchers will get those 3 outs when given a three run lead. So why bring in Rivera? Because it's officially a "Save" situation? Who fucking cares???

I mean, great, Mo got a career high in saves this season, one of only five closers to ever 50+ saves in a season. But now he's going home, and the Red Sox are playing in the World Series.

Do you think that if, instead of 54 saves, he'd only gotten 40 saves, he might have been able to close out game four?Keith Foulke didn't seem to have much problem going four games in a row and shutting the Yankees down, but then again, he threw perhaps 60% of the work in the regular season compared to Mo.

Boston always said it was built for the post season. They looked for awhile like they weren't even going to make it, but that's what they played for.Joe Torre apparently played for winning the AL East. Congrats Joe.

Furthermore, Torre, over the last four seasons, has been a "two strikes and you're out" guy. He gets someone in his pen, he gives the guy two chances, if he doesn't make it, he gets buried. Next pitcher please.

Keep going back to the same three guys, the same three guys, the same three guys, and then, hey, when your starting pitchers suddenly aren't going 7 innings in the post season, who are you going to turn to for the fifth and sixth innings? Hmmm, maybe this guy, who hasn't pitched since August, or maybe this guy, who got yanked after three innings of one run ball?See what I mean?

He's been just pisspoor at developing pitchers. Tanyon Sturtze was actually a very under the radar acquisition for them, but using him is a bit tricky. Let the kid start an inning, and he's fine. Bring him in there with a runner on base, and he fucks up. It's that simple. Check all the games he pitched. It's a pattern clear as daylight.Torre never noticed it.

And really, why is this Steinbrenner's fault? Because he, as one of four owners in the Major League, actually (gasp!) spends MONEY on his team? Unlike the other 25 owners who just hold out their hand for the wellfare / revenue sharing check?

Fuck, every owner in baseball should spend like Steinbrenner, then we'd finally be rid of all the Tampa Bays and Milwaukee Brewers in the league.

To me it seems that America is the one getting off scott-free while other countries who are willing to ratify have to "cripple" their economies.

Oh no, not the fucking Kyoto Protocol again. Here's the skinny on the Kyoto Protocol :

1) China, who contributes approximately 22% (and RAPIDLY rising) of the world's polution was exempt, because it was deemed "unfair" to an upcoming industrial nation that it should have to obey 'strict' laws on polution.Apparently nipping their polution in the ass before it begins wasn't a good idea, let's let them build the largest dirty industrial conglomeration in the history of the world, so we can all breathe THEIR dirty shit.

2) The US didn't sign the Kyoto protocol for a few reasons. One, which all you lefties always seem to conveniently ignore in your pathetic quest to blame Bush for everything, is that THE SENATE VOTED 93-0 AGAINST RATIFYING THE KYOTO PROTOCOL.How the fuck is that Bush's fault?Two, the cost for the US adhering to the stipulations of the Kyoto Protocol would have been staggering. While it was hard to exactly calculate the increase in energy bills for the average american, research estimated it anywhere between 40-several hundred percent.FORTY PERCENT. Now, you can all sit there and bitch saying that "blablabla, fucking America, fucking Bush, making the world a dirty place blablabla", but the simple fact of the matter is that NO GOVERNMENT would ever agree to a measure that increases cost of energy for its people by forty percent. Europe wouldn't do something like that either.And it's funny. When I still lived in Holland, there was a governmental initiative called "Green Power". For an extra five dollars a month, you could chose to have your power needs generated in "clean" power. (think wind energy, solar energy, etc.)Obviously, it's not that that power is going straight to your house, but if you used, say, 500KW one month, then the energy company would have generated 500KW of its total power output in clean power. (and obviously, the more people that did this, the more clean power would be generated).

FIVE DOLLARS A MONTH is all it cost. Do you know how many people eventually signed up for it? Virtually zero. (well, ok, several hundred thousand did, but still).Why? Because nobody wanted to pay extra for something as "stupid" as clean power.These were, ofcourse, the same people who INCESSANTLY bitched at the US when the US refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol.Three, there apparently was a stipulation that if the world's polution was to actually RISE, America, being the largest polutor, would have to pay a hefty fine. Just the US. Nobody else. (This is hearsay, I never actually verified this myself, so if it's not true, then my apologies.)

3) The Kyoto Protocol is the poster child of "fair weather politics". In other words, it's politicians all sitting together, talking about how they're making the world a better place so that the sheep / voters at home think they're doing a good job, when in fact they do fuck all.The 'penalty' for not attaining the target set by the Kyoto Protocol is a joke. For example, country A must diminish its polution in 2012 by 70% compared to 1990 levels. Sounds good, right?Right.If the country doesn't make that goal, do you know what the penalty is? That they have to diminish polution even more by the next deadline (2020, IIRC). So instead of having to go, say, 75% by 2020, they'd now have to go 80%.That's it. That's the penalty. You can see how countries are REALLY worried about not making their goal.

And finally, countries are actually attaining their goals already. You know how? By shifting polution. How do you do that, you ask? Simple.

Holland (again as an example, since I still lived there when the Kyoto Protocol was a hot topic) generated, say, 800.000 units of polution in generating 8.000.000 MW of energy. The Kyoto Protocol stipulated that Holland needed to be at 600.000 units of polution in 2012.So what did Holland do? They lowered their energy generation to 6.000.000 MW.

Oh no, wait, they didn't. They bought three generating plants in Romania, and generated 2.000.000 MW of power there. Thus, the generating need in Holland went down to 6.000.000, and their polution went down to the required 600.000.Romania was under it's "allowance" for polution, and could thus generate MORE polution without facing consequences.

THAT, in a nutshell, is the Kyoto Protocol, and how countries are 'adhering' to it. So please, get off your fucking moral high horse, and stop flaunting it as your proof how the US is so EEEVVIILLLL, because it's all just fucking bullshit.

Btw, I happen to work for a power company (AEP), and studies done by the whatever Department that Energy falls under have shown that the air in the US has gotten a lot cleaner because of cleaning up efforts in most major power plants. This was an internal report, not sure if that was ever released to the public or not. I'll see if I can still find a copy of it at work tomorrow, I'll be happy to send it to anyone who's interested.

The US wants fresh air same as everyone else. It just feels that we shouldn't be the ones paying for everyone else's fresh air. Just because the US didn't sign the useless Kyoto Protocol doesn't mean that the US isn't tackling polution in its own way.

I totally disagree with you on the firing of Joe Torre. There's no way the Yankees make it through this season/into the playoffs without using their bullpen the way he used it. You saw what happened when anyone but the three amigos gets the ball, 8 runs are scored before the Yankee's even have a chance.

Cashman and Steinbrenner have to take the heat for this one, but stein will just blame everyone around him, so whatever...

That is the biggest GAG JOB ever witnessed in the history of professional sports. 190 million dollars in payroll, and nobody cares enough to scrap out that one run in 17+ innings that would have won the series. What a bunch of goats.

I fully expect Steinbrenner to pull a Goodfellas, get his gun and shoot everyone in the face, so their mothers can't give them an open coffin funeral.

Two people fully deserve to be fired for this.

1) Kevin Brown. Biggest 100 million dollar joke in baseball. (Giambi is a close second, but there is that 1% chance that he actually WAS just very ill this season.)

2) Joe Torre. Not because he led this team to the biggest choke ever (it's not his fault his 190 million dollar payroll can't scrap together a run to save their asses), but because he TOTALLY fucked up his bullpen during the regular season.Nice going Joe. You got 101 wins, and you got Mariano Rivera 54 saves, and you got your top three guys at 1, 2 and 3 in appearances. Too bad they were running on the fumes of fumes when the series began, and so weren't able to get the only three outs that mattered this year, and now you'll be known as the goat who went 3-0 and lost 3-4.

And, for that matter, fire Don Mattingly as well. Why the hell this gimp was allowed to stay on as hitting coach when it was PAINFULLY obvious after the first three weeks that he didn't know shit about being a hitting coach is beyond understanding.

Sadly, I think the only casualty will be Brian Cashman, who really doesn't deserve it. (although he should have listened to George when George wanted to sign Ortiz, and Cashman refused because they already had Giambi. Imagine this series if Ortiz WASN'T with Boston??)

But, a great, great comeback by Boston, even though the baseball was just dirt fucking ugly for most of the games (which is why it doesn't merit "Best Series Ever" in my book). But to scrap out this win after they were D O N E at the start of game four is truly amazing, and they well deserved it.

Here's a Yahoo search with links to tons of sites for the info you want complete with quotes of Cheney asserting there was "overwhelming evidence" of ties between AQ and Iraq. That and implying things like saying he wasn't surprised that people make a connection between AQ and Iraq, not at all trying to disabuse anyone from that erroneous assumption.

OK, once more, slowly, so y'all can understand:

There were ties between Iraq and AQ, but that doesn't mean Iraq directly participated in 9/11. Is that idea so difficult for you to understand? Is that so foreign a concept as to not be readily understood? That's exactly what was said. Nowhere (even in all those links you chose to cut/paste) does it say "Iraq caused or participated in 9/11". Get over it, already.

Is your hatred of the left so irrational that you're willing to delude yourself into thinking that Cheney and co. wasn't lying for their own ends?

I don't hate the left at all, I just think they're misguided in many (but not all) of their goals and efforts.

You're the one full of hatred for "Bushco", Halsy, it's evident in your repeaded venomous posts (and probably outright stated somewhere in one or more of them).

While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.

I like how you conveniently ignore the statements of the left saying the exact same things.

1998: Kerry Said Saddam Had Chemical And Biological Weapons. KERRY: "[H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack." (ABC’s "This Week," 2/22/98)

2001: Kerry Said Saddam Has Used WMDs And Is Trying To Secure Additional Weapons. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "[I]t is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

2001: Kerry Says Saddam "Acted Like A Terrorist." KERRY: "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

2001: Kerry Says Need To Increase Pressure On Saddam. KERRY: "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections, when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11 ..." (Fox News’ "The O’Reilly Factor," 12/11/01)

2001: Kerry Says Iraq Part Of Global War On Terror. KERRY: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN’s "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

2002: Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

2002: Kerry Calls Saddam A "Renegade And Outlaw." "... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

2002: Kerry Wrote Saddam Inviting Enforcement If He Does Not Comply With International Community. "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

2002: Kerry Said Iraq’s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups. "I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS’ "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

2003: Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Kerry: "I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction. I Don't Know The Answer To That." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 12/14/03)

Kerry On Saddam's History Of Miscalculation: "And Now He Is Miscalculating America's Response To His Continued Deceit And His Consistent Grasp For Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, 1/23/03)

Kerry Wanted To Show World U.S. Ready To Act To Take Away Saddam's "Deadly Arsenal." "'By standing with the president, Congress will demonstrate that our nation is united in its determination to take away Saddam Hussein's deadly arsenal, by peaceful means if we can, by force if we must,' Kerry said." (Nick Anderson And Richard Simon, "Debate On Iraq," Los Angeles Times, 10/10/02)

On Eve Of War, Kerry Said Saddam Hussein's WMD Are Threat. KERRY: "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to …" (NPR's "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)

Kerry Said Saddam Chose "To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism." (Glen Johnson, "Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)

Kerry Said "Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real." "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Cited WMD As Reason For His Vote For Iraq Resolution: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat." (Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq, U.S. Senate, 10/9/02)

Kerry: Saddam "Would View" Inspections As Nothing More Than "Buying Time And Playing A Game." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/5/02)

Kerry Said "There's A Greater Rationale" For Pressuring Saddam Now Because Of His "Increasing Activities" Involving WMD. KERRY: "Well, I'm for focusing on Saddam Hussein. I've been saying that for a long period of time. I criticized the prior administration a number of years ago for pulling back from the intensity of focus on the inspections. When Ambassador Butler came back and the United Nations was focused, I thought that was the moment we should have kept the pressure on. There was no rationale for dropping that pressure then. There is no rationale for not having that pressure on now. On the contrary, there's a greater rationale to have it, because we know, through intelligence, of increasing activities that Saddam Hussein has been involved in with respect to weapons of mass destruction." (CNN's "Late Edition," 1/20/02)

Kerry Cited Evidence Of Saddam's "Efforts To Try To Secure" And Test WMD. KERRY: "No, no, no, n–at least I don't and not to my knowledge do any of my colleagues. But it is something that we know–for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable …" (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)

Kerry Warned Saddam's Strategy Was Not Just To Remove Sanctions, But To Build WMDs. "His strategy is working. Make no mistake about it, his strategy is not to lift the sanctions. His strategy is to build weapons of mass destruction. And his strategy has been able to nip away at UNSCOM over the course of months so that he's created sanctions fatigue among our allies, who also have a different set of international or national interpretation of interests here." (Sen. John Kerry, Committee On Armed Services And Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Joint Hearing, 9/3/98)

Kerry Worried About "Ultimate Nightmare" Of Saddam. "Finally, we must consider the ultimate nightmare. Surely, if Saddam's efforts are permitted to continue unabated, we will eventually face more aggression by Saddam, quite conceivably including an attack on Israel, or on other nations in the region as he seeks predominance within the Arab community. If he has such weapons, his attack is likely to employ weapons of unspeakable and indiscriminate destructiveness and torturous effects on civilians and military alike. What that would unleash is simply too horrendous to contemplate, but the United States inevitably would be drawn into that conflict." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12256)

Kerry: "He Cannot Be Permitted To Go Unobserved And Unimpeded Toward His Horrific Objective Of Amassing A Stockpile Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12255)

So, enough with the "Bush misled us" garbage. If you honestly think he did, then so did Kerry. I personally think that everyone told the truth when they said they believed the intelligence that said Saddam was trying to rebuild his WMDs, it was just bad intelligence. This intelligence started way before Bush was in office, as evidenced by Kerry's own comments, above.

************** Warhawk **************

I find this lack of stimulus to be truly disappointing, don't you think?

I try not to. However, you're young. Think all you want.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS

Bush administration officials insisted yesterday that they are learning more about various Iraqi connections with Al Qaeda. They said there is evidence suggesting a meeting took place between the head of Iraqi intelligence and Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the mid-1990s; another purported meeting was said to take place in Afghanistan, and during it Iraqi officials offered to provide chemical and biological weapons training, according to officials who have read transcripts of interrogations with Al Qaeda detainees.

But there is no evidence proving the Iraqi regime knew about or took part in the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush officials said.

The link you provided led to this statement, among others. I thought you were trying to prove me wrong, not support my side.

************** Warhawk **************

I find this lack of stimulus to be truly disappointing, don't you think?

I try not to. However, you're young. Think all you want.

Have I lied to you? I mean, in this room? Trust me, leave that thing alone. - GLaDOS